Sign in Subscribe
Human rights

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario Dismisses Application due to Lack of Jurisdiction

Strategic Insights

— 2 min read

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, led by Vice-Chair Denise Ghanam, dismissed an application filed by Rory Della Libera, a self-represented individual, against Match Group Inc. on grounds of lack of jurisdiction. The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability, gender expression, gender identity, and reprisal, but the Tribunal found that the relationship between the parties did not meet the requirements for a protected social area under the Human Rights Code (R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19).

Key Takeaways:

  • The applicant alleged discrimination based on various grounds, but failed to provide clear incidents of discrimination within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.
  • The Tribunal found that the relationship between the applicant and the respondent, Match Group Inc., did not fall under any of the protected social areas covered by the Code, specifically goods, services, and facilities; accommodation (housing); contracts; employment; or membership in vocational associations.
  • The applicant's allegations of reprisal or threat of reprisal were not explained in a manner that would engage the Code.
  • The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to inquire into all relationships and difficulties that may occur in those relationships.

Specific stories and initiatives mentioned:

  • Rory Della Libera's application and subsequent submissions to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.
  • Match Group Inc.'s role as a technology services provider, including the online dating applications OkCupid and Hinge.
  • The Tribunal's consideration of the applicant's Terms of Service and the relationship between the applicant and Match Group Inc.

Contextual details and implications:

  • The Tribunal's dismissal of the application highlights the importance of understanding the specific social areas covered by the Human Rights Code and the requirements for establishing a protected relationship.
  • The applicant's failure to provide clear incidents of discrimination and establish a protected relationship with the respondent underscores the need for careful analysis of the Tribunal's jurisdiction before proceeding with an application.

Statistics:

  • The Tribunal received the application on December 9, 2024.
  • The applicant filed submissions in response to the Request on December 16, 2024.
  • The Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction over the application due to the lack of a protected relationship between the parties.
  • The applicant specifically noted that they had dealt with the respondent through its subsidiaries, but this relationship did not engage the Code.
  • The Tribunal cited the decision in Wu v. City of Toronto and Toronto Ombudsman, 2023 ONSC 6192, in support of its conclusion that it did not have jurisdiction.

Sources:

  • Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, "Decision" dated June 25, 2025, file number 2024-55720-I.
  • Wu v. City of Toronto and Toronto Ombudsman, 2023 ONSC 6192.
  • Lin v. James, 2021 HRTO 393.
  • G-.L. v. OHIP (General Manager), 2014 ONSC 5392.

Read more